• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act—Reforms

1. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Is it her intention to retain the provision in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 that requires that priority be given to placing a child with "a person who is a member of the child's or young person's hapu or iwi (with preference being given to hapu members), or if that is not possible, who has the same tribal, racial, ethnic, or cultural background as the child" in her upcoming reform of the Act; if not, what specifically is she proposing the provision be amended to?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Tēnā koe, e Te Kaiwhakawā, ko Te Reo rua! Tuatahi, ko te tino ngako o tēnei whakakitenga hou, kia ora ngā tamariki katoa me ngā kaupapa here e whai ake, me ngā tautoko katoa i roto i Te Mana Whakahou, ā, nō reira , kia mōhio Te Whare Pāremata nei ko te tikanga o tēnei kaupapa, kia ora ngā tamariki katoa.

[Thank you, and second language, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the earnest desire of this new revelation is that all children, policies, and all the support contained in the Right of Renewal are well, and so this Parliament House must understand that the convention of this provision is that all children are well.]

As I have said from the very beginning, and will continue to say, the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, will put the safety and well-being of children and young people first, above everything else. When making decisions about a child, decision makers will have to ensure, whenever possible, that the relationship between the child or young person and their family, whānau, and usual caregiver is respected, supported, and strengthened; that the relationship between the child or young person and their siblings is respected, supported, and strengthened; and that the family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and usual caregiver have a voice and a role in decisions made about their child or young person.

Jan Logie: Was that the specific amendment that is being proposed to the Act?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As the bill has not yet been introduced, it would be inappropriate for there to be a discussion about specific provisions. However, once the bill is introduced there will be significant opportunity for submissions.

Jan Logie: Why is she proposing to remove the principle from section 5 of the Act that requires consideration to be given to how a decision will affect the stability of that child or young person's whānau, hapū, or iwi given that for tamariki Māori their well-being is inextricably linked to the well-being of their whānau and hapū?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because I am not familiar with the specific detail of clause numbers and provisions, as the member has put it, I am going to answer on the basis that—as I said in answer to the primary question—the core purpose of this transformation is to ensure that children are safe and in a stable and loving home. Therefore, the provisions that will be outlined in the bill will be directed at that outcome.

Darroch Ball: Given that answer, can she confirm that if she removes this race-based provision in the Act, does she then agree with New Zealand First that the ultimate priority should always be the safety, care, and protection of any child, regardless of the iwi, hapū, race, culture, or ethnicity?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: In answer to the first part of the question: no. In answer to the second part of the question: we consider the cultural context, identity, and language of the children whose safety has to be assured. That is an intrinsic part of it.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Tēnā koe Te Minita. Can you clarify whether the principles informing the bill provide preference towards whakapapa and whānau when making decisions about the care and protection of tamariki?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot confirm that, but what I can confirm is that the Māori Party has been making powerful advocacy to the Minister and the Government, and that process of discussion is ongoing.

Jan Logie: Does she agree that a truly child-centred approach would ensure that tikanga Māori, particularly around connection to whakapapa and whānau, would be of paramount importance, given that tamariki Māori make up 61 percent of children in State care?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No. The paramount requirement will be the safety of the child. However, in order to ensure a loving and stable home, then connections that arise from a cultural context will indeed be important.

Jan Logie: Is the Minister concerned that she does not seem to have a mandate from Māori to push these reforms through, seeing as the Government has failed to consult with key stakeholders such as the Māori Women's Welfare League, and only belatedly appointed one Māori member to the so-called expert advisory panel?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Of course the Minister will be concerned to ensure that consultation, as appropriate, has informed the development of the policy. I am aware, on behalf of the Minister, that I have consulted with a range of stakeholders. But I would commend the democratic institution of this very place to the member, where Parliament will have the opportunity to interrogate in detail the specific provisions that are the concern of the member, as set out in the primary question.

Jan Logie: Does she accept that, as she has not undertaken robust consultation of Māori on her reforms, which would see more tamariki Māori removed from their whānau, she should ensure there is enough time for the matter to be referred to the Waitangi Tribunal for proper scrutiny before the bill is introduced?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I accept none of the assertions that the member has made. I would repeat two elements of previous answers: (1) the Māori Party has been a very powerful advocate on behalf of the very tikanga that the member is identifying; and (2), there will be significant consultation opportunities as part of the select committee process.

• Hip and Knee Joint Elective Discharges—Figures

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What was the total percentage growth in hip and knee joint elective discharges between 2002/03 and 2008/09, and what was the same figure for 2009/10 to 2015/16?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Ninety-one and 24, but, remember, Labour was not in Government for nearly all of 2008-2009 when National came in and set a new target for lifting surgeries. The figures that are really relevant are that although Labour did an extra 10,000 electives per year over its time, this Government is doing an extra 53,000 operations per year. That is over five times the annual increase achieved by the previous Labour Government.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, why is he trying to hide the fact that there was a 91 percent increase in hip and knee joint surgery undertaken between 2002 and 2008—and that was a Labour Budget, not a National Budget—and only a 24 percent increase in the 7 years between 2009 and 2016, under this Government, even though the population increased and aged?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not trying to hide it at all, but I think it is interesting that Mrs King has chosen one of two areas where she managed to deliver any sort of an increase. So listen to this: general surgery under Mrs King, down; heart surgery under Mrs King, down; ear, nose, and throat surgery under Mrs King, down; gynaecological operations under Mrs King, down; and paediatric surgery, plastics and burns, urology, and vascular surgery under Mrs King—all fewer operations.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was quoting from an official document. Would he like to table it, please?

Mr SPEAKER: That is easily resolved. Was the Minister quoting from an official document; if so, could he table it?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I will not be tabling that, sorry. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, actually, I am happy to table it.

Hon Annette King: When he claims more elective surgery than ever, why does he not tell the people waiting for hip and knee operations in the Hutt Valley, MidCentral, Northland, South Canterbury, Tai Rāwhiti, Waikato, and Wanganui district health boards that they did fewer operations in 2015-16 than in 2014-15?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Quite frankly, overall there has been a 30 percent lift in hip and knee operations under this Government. That is the fact of it. But I would also tell them that when Mrs King left office, there were 33,000 people waiting over 6 months for appointments or treatment. Today there is pretty much zero waiting over 6 months.

Simon O'Connor: Can the Minister confirm, further to the primary question's reference to a previous administration, that the number of elective surgeries was actually cut from 107,880 in 2000-01 to 105,600 in 2005-06, a cut of 2,218—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, this is a question that I think is designed to do nothing else but to attack an Opposition party.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order that I will address first.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The primary question posed by Mrs King refers to her time as the Minister of Health. It refers to the period when Labour was in Government, so I think that opens it up for questions on that period. That is just logical.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may well think that, but we are still not going to have questions that are designed to do nothing else but attack an Opposition party.

Hon Annette King: Is Professor David Gwynne-Jones correct in his research published in April 2016, which shows that people receiving hip and knee surgery under this Government are more severely disabled than they were previously?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to go and read that research, because I would not be surprised if Mrs King is selectively lifting conclusions from it.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the article, which is in the New Zealand Medical Journal from April this year, and in which that is exactly what he said.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the medical journal is not often available to members, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular article. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does he think that at some point in the future there may be a realistic challenge to his excellent management of the health portfolio by a futuristic look at the health sector from the Labour Party?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not know, but what I can say is that the historical look does not look very good at all. When you look at the Dominion Post from September 2005, it said that it was just unbelievable that you could put so much extra money into the health system but make it worse.

Simon O'Connor: What reports has he seen around the number of elective surgeries between 2001 and 2006?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have seen a range of reports, but the key figure is that the Minister in charge at that time managed to deliver, unbelievably, 2,000 fewer operations and 7,000 fewer appointments, despite having an extra $3 billion in the Budget. Quite frankly, I do not know how you could possibly do that, but someone managed it.

Hon Annette King: Why—[Interruption] Who said that?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need assistance from the Government whip.

Hon Annette King: Why has there been a big increase in acute hip and knee operations—in other words, people needing urgent treatment that cannot wait—which has almost doubled under this Government, and are doctors correct when they called him "Dr Who" in a doctor's magazine?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Acute surgery actually shows that people are getting their operations sooner. Basically, they get the injury and then they have the operation. It is a far cry from when Mrs King was the Minister, when 33,000 people were waiting for more than 6 months, and then, of course, Pete Hodgson had to just cull them off the list altogether. Today there are zero waiting more than 6 months because they are actually getting their operations, unlike when that person was the Minister.

Hon Annette King: I thought we were forward-looking.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Yes. What action is he taking on hearing comments from Waikato District Health Board that "staff across the organisation were under pressure to deliver targets and yet the district health board's own reports showed it was financially under-resourced."?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, the first report we got on that was an anonymous phone call to my office. So the immediate action we took was to google the number, which turned out be the Wellington office of the Labour Party.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is against the Standing Orders for any member to stand in this House and say that sort of thing without proving it. I want—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] No. Order! The member asked a question about what action the Minister took. The Minister—[Interruption] Order! The Minister gave an answer to the action he took. If in any way the member now feels she has been misrepresented, then the place for that is to refer to Standing Order 359.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the point of order, but if it is in regards to the matter I have just—

Hon Annette King: No, what I wanted to say was that in your summary of the member's answer you said "the action he took". What he said was—it was not the action. He said he received anonymous information that came from the Labour Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. I have dealt with the point of order. The member may well debate the answer that was given, and if she feels strongly enough about an issue of potential misrepresentation, I have given her guidance on what to do. But it is not about continuing points of order in this House on that matter. Question No. 3—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wishes to proceed for a further conversation in the lobbies with the Minister she is more than welcome. In the meantime I am calling Todd Muller, question No. 3.

• Economy—Reports

3. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing New Zealand's economy is strong and its financial system is sound and operating effectively?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday the Reserve Bank released its November Financial Stability Report. The Reserve Bank says the economy is strong in comparison with other advanced economies and New Zealand's external liabilities are well below pre - global financial crisis levels. It says the financial system is sound, with the banking system holding capital and liquidity buffers above regulatory requirements.

Todd Muller: What are some of the main financial system risks that the Reserve Bank points to in its report?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We need to keep in mind the context in which the Reserve Bank is pointing out these risks. It has fundamental responsibility for the financial stability in the economy and tends to point out anything that looks like it could be a risk, so these should not be interpreted as significant risks right now to the financial system. It highlights risks it has talked about previously: the housing market, bank funding pressures, and dairy sector indebtedness—for instance, in the case of the dairy sector, rising prices are taking some pressure off the small number of heavily indebted dairy farmers. The bank says that measures that it has taken in the housing market have had some effect, but it stresses that addressing the underlying housing supply imbalances will be necessary to contain price growth.

Todd Muller: What steps can he report are being taken to improve financial sector resilience?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some improvements can be made at the margins, but the New Zealand financial sector, particularly given the global financial crisis, is already substantially resilient. Since then there has been a significant uplift in the prudential requirements on banks, for instance, and the savings rates of New Zealanders have also increased since then. A number of steps, though, have been taken to improve resilience: the loan-to-value ratio rules were recently tightened by the Reserve Bank, the capital requirements for housing investors requiring 40 percent deposit, and the bank is now reviewing the capital buffer requirements on banks.

James Shaw: How does the Minister account for the discrepancy between his own and Treasury's highly optimistic assessment of the economy against the Reserve Bank's assessment, which talks about considerable continued build-up of risk, in particular in the dairy and housing markets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think there is a fundamental difference in the views of agencies or the Government or even the general public, actually, about where the economy is heading. It is on a positive track. It is one of the faster-growing economies in the developed world, delivering more jobs, and moderate but consistent increases in incomes. The Reserve Bank has a particular role, which is to look at anything that could turn into a risk to the financial system. It goes into that in great detail in its financial stability report, but it does not contradict the outlook for the economy.

Todd Muller: How does New Zealand's banking system compare with those in other advanced economies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a number of ways in which the banking system is performing well. The cost of bank services is below the OECD average. New Zealand has the lowest share of non-performing loans in the OECD at 0.4 percent—so only 0.4 percent of loans are in a state where the borrower is not meeting their obligations. Across most developed countries in the OECD the median is around 4 percent. The Reserve Bank also ranks New Zealand's banks as highly cost-effective with the lowest expenses as a proportion of income in the OECD.

• Reserve Bank—Debt-to-Income Ratio Restrictions

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Finance: Does he support the Reserve Bank introducing debt-to-income ratio restrictions for mortgage lending; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is presently considering a request from the Reserve Bank to add a debt-to-income tool to the bank's macro-prudential toolbox. No decision has been made yet, but I would point out to the member that in the last few days the Reserve Bank Governor has said that if the tool was available at the moment, he would not be implementing it at the moment.

Phil Twyford: How has he allowed the housing market to deteriorate to the point where a third of new mortgages are now over six times the family income?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The level of those mortgages is a decision made between the borrower and the bank. They decide between them how much risk they are willing to take, and one of the things that will be driving the borrowers' considerations is that interest rates are half what they were when Labour left office. That is one of the reasons why there is strong demand for housing. Another reason is that those households have confidence in the economy, they can see that their jobs could yield pay rises consistently over time, and they back themselves to be able to meet the mortgage commitments. I do not think the Government is in a better position to make that decision.

Phil Twyford: Is he concerned that with the average mortgage for a first-home buyer now at $390,000, a 1 percent rise in interest rates would add four grand a year to interest payments, crippling many hard-working families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member refers to these hard-working families as if they somehow lack the capacity to understand what they are doing, and I disagree with him. I have spoken to many hard-working families who understand that interest rates could go up. Their banks actually run their tests on the mortgage as if interest rates are 6 or 7 percent—that is, 1.5 percent higher than they currently are. So we believe these are mature, sensible people—hard-working people—who are making reasonable decisions about what risks they are willing to take. That is against a background of pretty consistent warnings from the Reserve Bank that they should not overstretch themselves, and it appears that banks in particular are listening to that.

Phil Twyford: Is he embarrassed that despite repeatedly telling the House that loan-to-value ratios (LVRs) were the decision of the independent Reserve Bank, the bank has now so publicly asked his permission to add a debt-to-income ratio to the tool kit, preventing a repeat of that deception?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No—not embarrassed at all.

Phil Twyford: When will he accept that telling first-home buyers to be careful and tools like LVRs and debt-to-income ratios that hammer home buyers do not amount to a housing policy, and that the only serious solutions are to build more affordable homes, genuinely reform the planning system, and crack down on speculators?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that, as the member knows—it has been discussed extensively in the House—increasing the supply of housing is the key to having a less exaggerated house price cycle. The biggest step forward in that has been the passage of the Auckland Unitary Plan, because the Government cannot go and build thousands of houses if the council plan does not allow it to occur. This new Auckland Unitary Plan does, and I want to acknowledge the member's efforts in helping the council get across the line on what is a radically different plan. Now he can look forward to increases in the supply of housing.

• Police Resourcing—Minister of Police's Statements

5. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Given reports that on 9 August she admitted that there are not enough Police and that she was in talks with the Prime Minister over the matter, can she advise whether the talks have ended or are still ongoing?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Actually, what I said, and I have said quite consistently, is that police will need more resources going into the future. This is absolutely the case, and, as I have also said, I have been working on this for quite some time now. This is not back-of-the-envelope, numbers-plucked-out-of-thin-air stuff. Our police actually deserve proper consideration and discussion, and that is exactly what I am doing.

Ron Mark: Can she explain how our under-staffed police force will be expected to attend every burglary while trying, at the same time, to combat organised crime, or does her Government consider combatting organised crime to be a low priority now?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have full confidence in the Commissioner of Police when he advised me that police can, in fact, attend every burglary, whether it is a police officer, whether it is an authorised officer, or whether it is a forensic services person. I have full confidence in police when they say that they do have those resources at the moment, but they accept, as well, that they are going to need more resources into the future.

Ron Mark: What good news does she have for the communities of Palmerston North, Christchurch, Northland, and many other towns and regions across the country that are reporting increased levels of crime and a reduction in police officers and resources, and for those police officers who will be on duty over the Christmas and New Year period?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Just dealing first with Northland, because that is one of the, I think, four questions there. Let us have a look at Northland. Well, I have been advised that in August 12 Criminal Investigation Branch investigators from Auckland were sent to assist Northland district for 3 weeks, with six going to Kaitāia and the other half to Kaikohe. Additionally, six extra investigators are being allocated to the district for the next 12 months, which that member, I hope, will appreciate. Four of these began work on 10 October; two positions are still to be filled. They will be based in Kaikohe, but will move around the district as needed. The team sent in August has helped to clear a backlog of serious crime files and provide support to local staff, as has happened with regard to Northland at different times and periods over the last 10 months. In addition, six public safety team officers from across Auckland were also sent to assist front-line staff in Kaitāia and Kaikohe.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that there will not be any announcements from police commanders in the regions, specifically the Manawatū, Horowhenua, Wairarapa, that there are going to be police cuts and the removal of officers who are sole officers in the district they are currently in—an absolute categorical assurance?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Quite clearly, as a Minister, it is not my prerogative to advise where police should be placed, because if I were to, they would all be in my electorate, obviously.

Stuart Nash: Because they're needed.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, yes, that is right! And it is very important, though, to allow the police to undertake the allocation of the resources that they have. But I would say to that member that, thankfully, there are 600 more police now than there ever were under a previous Government.

• Environment, Minister—Statements

6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement that Ōkahukura/Lucas Creek is a stream that "nobody has ever wanted or tried to swim in"?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: Dr Smith, I understand, made this remark in the context that Lucas Creek is a small urban creek in Auckland, that Auckland City has a huge challenge to improve its urban waterways, and that the council and the community are already engaged in cleaning up this creek. But very little of its length is enough to swim in or to be accessible for swimming.

Catherine Delahunty: How does he explain this extraordinary, negative statement to mana whenua, the Friends of Lucas Creek, Sustainable Pāremoremo, and the Wai Care group, supported by Auckland Council and the Upper Harbour community board, which has been putting in hours of work to make the creek safe for swimming again?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: We certainly appreciate the work that the community and the iwi have been doing in cleaning up this river, but I restate and say that very little of this river is deep enough, wide enough, or accessible for swimming.

Catherine Delahunty: When the Green MPs kayaked four abreast last week on the Lucas Creek, and had miles of water around them, why was it not possible for us to swim?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I suspect that Green MPs were kayaking in the estuary, at the bottom of the creek.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that even this river, which he wrote off as one that no one was wanting to swim in, which I paddled up to Kells waterfall in, has been restored by a huge community effort—to be swimmable—why will he not help and amend the national policy statement (NPS) for fresh water to make it a bottom line that rivers are safe for swimming?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Wadable and boatable is a bottom line for the fresh water NPS. It is a bottom line, and most New Zealand communities want to make more of their rivers and lakes swimmable, and we support that aspiration. We are looking to amend the fresh water NPS, on further consultation.

• Kaikura Earthquake—Probability of Future Earthquakes

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Civil Defence: How has the 14 November Kaikōura earthquake affected the probability of future earthquakes in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): GNS Science issued an update about recent observations that were published about a week ago. It has observed an unusual activity involving slow slips, essentially the ongoing interactions observed between tectonic plates at the same time on both the east and the west parts of the lower North Island. The heightened activity increases the uncertainty about the likelihood and size of future earthquakes. Since the 7.5 magnitude Kaikōura earthquake, GNS Science has advised the public that an aftershock of similar or larger magnitude is unlikely but possible. As members of the House will understand, it is not scientifically possible to predict earthquakes. However, this ongoing seismic activity is a reminder to us all that we live in a seismically active country, and we should always be prepared for a major earthquake. [Interruption]

Chris Bishop: This is a cracker—what steps can New Zealanders take to be better prepared for a disaster?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is a good question, and it is not a laughing matter in these circumstances. The Kaikōura earthquakes have prompted important conversations about being well prepared for earthquakes and tsunami. I encourage New Zealanders to go to the happens.nz website to get information on how to get ready and get through potential disaster. You can always make a plan online in just a few minutes if you wish. It is also important for people to quake safe their homes by doing the things that they have always been told to do: secure tall furniture to walls, restrain your television and hot-water cylinders, and I would encourage people to visit eqc.govt.nz for tips on how to make homes safer in the event of an earthquake. It is one of those things that too many of us take for granted. We live in a country where these things happen. We should make necessary preparations where possible.

Marama Fox: It is my understanding that Ministerial Services staff and Ministers have been supplied with a grab and go bag here in Parliament, in the event of a major earthquake; can the Minister let us know whether or not other MPs and Parliamentary Service staff will be supplied with the same kit?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My understanding is that that is something that Ministerial Services may have done under its health and safety obligations. I am sure that the Speaker, who has similar obligations on behalf of members of Parliament, will have heard the question and will have his people make appropriate considerations.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

• Early Childhood Education—Funding

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that early childhood education services are getting all the funding they need to deliver quality education and care for children?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): We would all always want more funding, and, of course, there has been more—100 percent more for early childhood education (ECE). Our children's educational outcomes improve significantly when they are able to benefit from quality early learning. That is why this Government is committed to ensuring as many of our earliest learners as possible are participating in quality ECE options. This has seen the numbers of children attending ECE climbing consistently since 2008—it is now at 96.7 percent—and by making sure we have the funding to match. This Government, as I have already said, has almost doubled ECE funding since 2008, to a record $1.8 billion. We also want childcare to be accessible, and since 2008 access to ECE has become 33.5 percent more affordable.

Chris Hipkins: Why does she continue to spread the misrepresentation that early childhood education funding is increasing, when on a per child per year basis the Ministry of Education's own documents suggest that the funding has fallen by over $500 per year per child from over $10,000 to less than $9,500 per child per year?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not a misrepresentation, to the member. The facts are very clear that the Government has doubled the amount that was available in 2008—from I think about $780 million to $1.79 billion now. I do not think it takes much—

Chris Hipkins: There's more kids.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There are, but there are not more kids in the way that the member is—and actually, we want there to be more kids. That is why we have a Better Public Services target; that is why we are at 96.7 percent.

Chris Hipkins: Does she believe that cutting more than $500 per child per year from early childhood education services funding makes it easier or harder for parents to meet the cost of their kids' early childhood education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Government has not done that.

Chris Hipkins: Why has her Government cut more than $528 million from early childhood education during its tenure in office by removing the top funding band for services that offer the highest quality early childhood education by employing the most qualified staff?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have the number readily to hand, regrettably, but under this Government the number of qualified teachers in early childhood education has risen significantly more than it did under that Government, with a policy that it was never going to meet.

Chris Hipkins: What have been the educational benefits of removing the funding band for early childhood services that employ 100 percent qualified teachers?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: This Government has doubled funding for early childhood education. It has committed to ensuring that as many young people participate in education as possible. It has provided support to failing early childhood centres. It has ensured that more Māori and Pasifika, those least likely to attend, are now attending. We are currently in a consultation about the refresh of Te Whāriki, the curriculum that underpins early childhood education, to ensure that the quality outcomes that all of us see—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I allowed the Minister's answer to go on for a long time—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the point of order, please.

Chris Hipkins: —because I was hoping that she would address the question that I asked, but she has not in any way come even close to the question that I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I was listening very carefully as well. I think on this occasion she has, when I consider the question essentially was "What is the education advantage?". A wide question like that gives the Minister a fairly wide ambit in answering it; the Minister took that opportunity.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on that matter. If the member has a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it, but I am not happy—

Chris Hipkins: You might not have heard the last part of the question, which was about the educational benefits of cutting a particular strand of funding.

Mr SPEAKER: I took that into account when I gave my consideration.

Chris Hipkins: Which of the following best reflects her Government's achievements in early childhood education: the fact that the cost to parents for their children's early childhood education has been rising at up to 7 times the rate of inflation; the fact that there have been increasing complaints from staff working in early childhood education that they feel like they are "factory farming … children"; or her failure to reach her own Government's participation targets?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: None of those; they reflect the negative attitude of the Opposition. As far as our Government goes, childcare is increasingly affordable in New Zealand. In the year to March 2016 the cost of childcare relative to earnings decreased by 2.2 percent. In April 2016 the childcare subsidy was increased from $4 to $5 an hour. Around 41,000 families and 49,000 children will benefit from this change each year. The affordability of ECE as at March 2016 has become 1.9 percent more affordable than in March 2011, when considering CPI and average annual earning increases. I could go on, but, basically, the member should improve his numeracy. How can there possibly be a cut when the dollars have doubled?

• Economic Growth—Southland

9. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government supporting economic development in Southland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yesterday primary industries Minister, Nathan Guy, and I attended a meeting of more than 500 people in Invercargill for the launch of the Southland Regional Development Strategy Action Plan. The plan was developed locally in Southland. It is supported by the Government through our regional growth programme, which aims to increase jobs, incomes, and investment across regional New Zealand. It lays out a clear plan to diversify the Southland economy, grow the population by 10,000 people over the next 10 years, and strengthen local businesses. To help achieve these goals, the region has identified opportunities to grow sectors like tourism and international education, to develop the aquaculture sector, and further improve the productivity of the sheep, beef, and dairy industries.

Sarah Dowie: What initiatives are contained in the plan to grow the primary sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Agriculture is, of course, a crucial part of the Southland economy—it is the largest contributor to the region's GDP—but there are opportunities to grow it further by diversifying land use and finding innovative and sustainable ways to grow productivity. We are supporting that work by investing $220,000 to develop the skills and capabilities of farmers, and promote the uptake of improved farming practices, and $300,000 towards the development and the delivery of the People, Water and Land Strategy, which is about maintaining freshwater quality. AgResearch is investing $5 million in the Southern Dairy Hub, a new research and demonstration farm that will ensure the local dairy sector can continually benefit from access to the latest science. And we are investing just under a million dollars to investigate the potential for substantially growing the aquaculture industry in Southland, to further diversify the local economy.

Sarah Dowie: What other initiatives are in the plan, and what support is the Government providing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Along with the release of the plan, associate tourism Minister, Paula Bennett, and I announced a $510,000 package to help strengthen the region's tourism industry and attract more visitors to more of the attractions in the region. Although Southland visitor spending is up 3.3 percent in the year to September, that is a lower rate of growth than in other parts of New Zealand. There is huge potential to grow this further. We are also investing $440,000 to promote international education and skill development in the primary sector, and that will assist with the region's goal not only to bring in an additional 3,500 international students but to increase the number of students and their families who settle and remain in Southland as the region grows.

• Police Resourcing—Burglaries

10. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with the front-line police officer who recently said, regarding Police resources to attend every dwelling burglary, "we're only chasing our tails … The only solution is more staff. With successive frozen budgets, we're at rock bottom"?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I certainly agree with the officer's views on the impact that burglary has on victims, and for those reasons I support the Police's increased focus on burglary. I also agree that Police will need more resources going into the future. However, the officer was incorrect to say that the Police budget has been frozen. Police has received considerable extra funding under this Government, with an annual budget of $1.6 billion—up from $1.2 billion when National took office. This year's Budget further demonstrated the Government's commitment to preventing and reducing crime, with Police receiving an extra $299.2 million—hardly a frozen budget.

Stuart Nash: When she said, in response to question No. 5, that if she had her way, all of the police would be moved to her electorate, is that because in her police district over the last 12 months, crime increased by 7 percent, or over 50 crimes per week?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, really, I think that the member needs to listen a little bit more closely. I did, however, point out that there is a reason that a Minister does not get to decide where the police are all based, because, otherwise, they might all be in that Minister's electorate, and not in, for instance, that member's electorate.

Hon Steven Joyce: Although, if you came over to our side, Stuart—

Stuart Nash: Well, I would make a better Minister of Police than she would. Anyway—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was responding to an interjection. He will now proceed to the supplementary question.

Stuart Nash: How does she explain to the people of New Zealand an increase of over 13,000 crimes over the last 12 months—that is 250 extra crimes per week compared with the previous 12 months—and yet she has still done nothing to increase police numbers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course, if I wanted to explain those numbers—the 70 percent of them is an increase in burglaries, and that is why police are focused on burglaries.

Stuart Nash: In light of that, has she received any reports of police from organised crime units being moved, either temporarily or permanently, to solve burglaries; if so, what is the nature of these reports?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand that there is an anonymous letter to a trade union organisation paper saying that, but I have not got any evidence of it other than that.

Stuart Nash: Given that she said yesterday that "that member knows that the Prime Minister and I have made numerous statements to him, and others, around the resourcing of police", can she advise how many more unnecessary victimisations have to take place before the Minister finally stops talking and starts acting?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Leaving aside the very unfair nature of that question, I can say that this Minister is acting all the time when it comes to numbers, because we are working on this and have been for some time. If only he would do the groundwork like New Zealand First does, and make the odd Official Information Act request, he might find out.

• Broadband, Ultra-fast—Announcements

11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on the Ultrafast Broadband programme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Communications: Last week the Minister released the latest quarterly broadband update, which highlights that nearly 50,000 new connections were made to ultra-fast broadband (UFB) in the 3 months to September. This means the number of premises connected to UFB has now surpassed 300,000 homes and businesses nationwide. Uptake has increased to 28.3 percent, so we are now well on our way to having the 36 percent uptake we expected to have for 2019 when the build is finished. People are connecting to fibre more quickly and seeing the benefits of this world-leading connectivity project.

Brett Hudson: How is the UFB programme tracking against initial expectations?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The overall deployment of UFB is now 5 percent ahead of schedule, at over 69 percent complete around the country, with 13,342 new end-users added to the market this quarter. Uptake is also tracking above expectations, and we are seeing fibre transform communities and businesses right around New Zealand.

• Students with Special Needs—Support

12. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied with the level of support and choice provided by her ministry for students with the highest level of special needs to attain their personal best?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I am never satisfied that we cannot always improve. That is why, last week, I announced that a single point of access will be piloted in the Waiariki Bay of Plenty to schools and families that need to access learning support for their children. This pilot is part of the learning support update that I commissioned to ensure that we have world-class inclusive education that puts progress and success for all children and young people at the heart of teaching and learning. The update work, which is not yet complete, is focused on ensuring that our learning support system is child-centred, simple to access, and available promptly, early, and without interruption, for as long as it is required.

Tracey Martin: Can she confirm that Halswell Residential College is one of the eight that her ministry has been working with over seclusion rooms?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.

Tracey Martin: Is the Minister aware that Salisbury School—a school she is considering closing—eliminated seclusion, restraint, isolation, and time out in 2011, and is now a model of best practice?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am well aware that Salisbury School has done that, and I am also well aware that the ratio of staff to students is significantly higher than it is anywhere else in the country.

Tracey Martin: When will the Minister announce her decision on Salisbury School's future, given that originally she said it would be released in October 2016, or is she waiting until after the House has risen so she can avoid answering questions about how she has left the staff, parents, and students in limbo, awaiting her pleasure?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There is nothing pleasurable about this. No, I do not intend to outwait the House. I am very happy to be accountable. The staff have not been left in limbo. The ministry has consistently updated them with where we are, including answering further questions that Salisbury School has put to us.

Chris Hipkins: Why did this year's Budget allocate $6 million less to the ongoing resourcing scheme, which supports the most high-needs special-needs students in our schools, than her own Budget bid indicated was required just to maintain the status quo?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Budget provided $16.5 million to enable more students to access the ongoing resourcing scheme.

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table the Minister's Budget bid, which indicates $22 million was required.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

© Scoop Media